Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 20th, 2009

[Mary Dawson]

Either.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Is that the complainant or the person who is the subject of the complaint? What correspondence are you referring to?

[Mary Dawson]

I'm at the stage of starting to look at it—and I have to say this applies particularly in the code. But when I look into a matter and am some way down looking into it, or if I discontinue an investigation, I'm in communication with both the complainant and the person who was complained against. I will always complete my activity by writing them a letter and telling them what happened. It's confidential, unless they wish to release it.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Therefore, the complainant or the person at the centre of the complaint could release the reasons, but not you.

[Mary Dawson]

That's right. I had one situation where the person who was complained against did disclose it. But sometimes one of them doesn't want to disclose it, or neither of them do, if I'm halfway between.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

My last question concerns the people who will file complaints or make disclosures..., who could be victims of reprisals. What do you recommend? You have also addressed that in your report.

[Mary Dawson]

I'm not sure we need any rule for that; I simply gave that as a rationale for why things are not disclosed unnecessarily. I would take a certain amount of care and would have some discretion as well, I would hope, as to whether to disclose something.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, madam.

Finally, we have Monsieur Wrzesnewskyj to bring us home.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Madam Dawson, should our committee decide to proceed with a new investigation into this abuse of cheques, with infrastructure cheques being presented by ministers of the crown....

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Obviously our Conservative colleagues aren't happy to hear that we're discussing this publicly.

But should we decide to conduct such an investigation into the conduct of ministers of the crown and Conservative members of Parliament, and if it in fact appears that some Conservative members who sit on this committee were part of this cheques scheme, would it be a conflict of interest for them to partake in those committee meetings when we're trying to get to the bottom of how this happened?

[Mary Dawson]

That would be under the code, not the act, in most cases. And I think it would depend on the circumstances of each person involved. But in the abstract, I can't answer that question. You'd have to look at each specific case.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

One would think that members of Parliament would do the ethical thing and recuse themselves in those circumstances. Mind you, if they've put their names on those cheques, there is a question mark as to whether or not they would do the ethical thing.

We've previously discussed the $1,000 limit on gifts. But there's an exclusion for trips abroad. We've seen trips that have cost up to $10,000 per person. Family members of MPs have in fact taken such trips abroad. We have a $1,000 limit on gifts, but for trips abroad it's basically a free-for-all. It appears that some MPs actively take part in such foreign trips, with costs much higher than tens of thousands of dollars.

Should that be addressed, especially when you have committee members sitting on committees? These trips are often funded by foreign governments or lobbying organizations. Should that not be addressed, and is it ethical for members of Parliament who have participated in such trips to take part in discussions in committees pertaining to policies that relate to those countries or organizations?

[Mary Dawson]

There are different rules in the code and the act. I think I'm going to turn to my assistant here to answer your question.

[Lyne Robinson-Dalpé]

In terms of what you're referring to, a lot of the issues are related to sponsored travel. Big amounts of travel are related to sponsored travel and are therefore related under the code. Parliament business is also covered under the code. There are some recusal mechanisms that MPs have to abide by when they're in committee business, but again, that is under the code, and we're talking here about the act.

I guess the issue can be raised in PROC, at that point in time, to look at the code and see which kind of mechanisms members should operate by in committees when they have such dealings.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Just for those who don't know, PROC is the short form for the procedure and House affairs committee.

But that's right, the procedure and House affairs committee does in fact deal with matters related to members of Parliament. This committee deals with public office-holders as defined.

Commissioner, this has been actually a very good meeting. We have in the past maybe not had an opportunity to really get into many of the areas that you have responsibility for. I can tell you personally that my biggest issue today, brought up by Pat Davidson, was the human resources issue.

For you to discharge your responsibilities, you have a full-time equivalent complement, which is budgeted for. However, like many of the commissioners, you are unable to source and train and have a full complement to be able to discharge the various responsibilities you have. Part of the problem, which you identified, is that we have people who are in fact moving around to other areas within the federal government or its agencies or its authorities, which means that we're just passing on the problem to somebody else. It just seems to rotate around.

I don't know how we get off this merry-go-round, but if you check the records, the Auditor General raised this several years ago. I think it's a problem that we have ignored, and I hope that you as the commissioner will look for opportunities to participate in whatever dialogue is necessary, whether it be through Treasury Board or whatever. We need to get off this merry-go-round. We need to have full complements of staff in our commissions, in our commissioners' offices, as well as in other departmental areas so that they can properly discharge their responsibilities, which are the responsibilities that we are providing to all Canadians.

So I hope you will do what you can as you consult with others who you know have similar responsibilities in terms of human resources, and that there will be a solution to this, because it has been years.

To you and your colleagues, thank you kindly for the excellent job. We certainly look forward to having you come back before us--for the estimates, at least, and I'm sure something else will come up. We thank you for accepting our invitation to be here, to present yourself to the committee, and to allow the committee to get to know you a little bit better.

You're excused now.

That said, I'd like to deal with that one issue that Mr. Siksay had raised about the guidelines for ministers and ministers of state and whether or not the committee would like to consider having someone from PCO or a delegate from the Prime Minister's Office to help the committee understand where they fit in the regime.

I'm going to go to Mr. Siksay first, and then I have Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, and then Mr. Poilievre.

Mr. Siksay, please.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Chair, if it's helpful, I'll give a notice of motion: that the standing committee have witnesses on the Privy Council Office guidelines for ministers and ministers of state at the meeting of November 17 or, should the witnesses not be available that day, at the next available opportunity.

We can discuss this at our next meeting, if that makes it easier for folks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Well, okay, that's a possibility, but we may just have consent. People have their calendars--we all do--and the longer we wait to address this question....

If I may, Borys, let me just ask Mr. Poilievre if he has an answer for us on this matter.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

The Conservative delegates to this committee are prepared to offer consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay. With that, we'll go forward and ask the clerk to communicate with PCO to seek a suitable date for them to appear before us. The first opportunity would be November 17, but we have a couple of days after that, as you know from your calendar. So we'll take it under advisement and we'll advise the committee as soon as we find out what their availability would be. Is that acceptable?

Thank you kindly.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, you had a matter?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Yes, I do, Mr. Chair. I understand that Madam Freeman has put a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Insufficient notice of motion. We'll have to deal with that at the next meeting.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

If there is unanimous consent on a motion, does it still require the 48 hours?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We have no consent. On Thursday we'll deal with it.

Okay, madame? C'est ça?

This meeting is adjourned.